Loading...
PC 03-26-90 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 26, 1990 ROLL CALL: SALUTE TO THE FLAG: Chairman claudy vice Chairman Makenzie Commissioner Adams Commissioner Mann Commissioner Fazekas Commissioners Present: Robert cowan, Director of Community Development Mark Caughey, City Planner Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 12, 1990, as amended. Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 POSTPONEMEN'l'S OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 1: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 5: ADDlication 5-EXC-89: Lance Geselbracht requested continuance to April 9, 1990 Applicant Com. Mackenzie moved to continue Item 1 to April 9, 1990 Com. Adams Passed 5-0 ADDlication 2-Z-90: citv of CUDertino Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of community Development explained that Item 5 was being continued regarding the General Plan. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to removed Item 5 from the agenda at this time Com. Adams Passed 5-0 WRI'rI'EN COMMUNICATIONS: Letter from a concerned citizen regarding item 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 26, 1990 page 2 Com. Mann thanked persons who send mail. She stated she had received a telephone, call from an individual regarding an application not on the agenda this date. She noted she did not wish to take calls from people on pending items. Com. Claudy stated that on an advice from Council, he would not discuss an application outside a planning commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR: - none PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. FILE REFERENCE 81.004.211: Public hearing to consider amendment of Ordinance NS 1200 (Sec. 30) concerning non- conforming uses and buildings, and Ordinance 779 R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zoning district, and other residential zoning districts to allow replacement of the existing number of units on a site which is destroyed by involuntary act or natural disaster. Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan presented the staff report. He stated that the proposed ordinance entails two procedures for those property owners with a legal non-conforming use. He noted the proposed ordinance states that if a person owns property in a residential zone which is destroyed by an involuntary action, the property owner can build the exact same configuration as they had before. Mr. Cowan stated the negative aspect of this ordinance is that over time older buildings will not be up to standard in terms of redevelopment. Mr. Cowan noted that the ordinance was a redraft and must go back to the Environmental Review Committee. He requested that the Commissioners do not recommend adopting this ordinance at this time. Mr. Cowan suggested that after pUblic testimony the Commissioners give staff direction and continue it to April 9, 1990. He noted that if a property owner wants to add to or change his property, they must conform with the new codes. Com. Mackenzie asked staff if the same configuration applied to the interior of the building as well as the exterior. In response Mr. Cowan stated the intent is to replicate the building. Com. Mackenzie expressed concern for abuse of the new ordinance and noted that the interior unit size should be maintained. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. Cowan stated that new buildings have to comply with the new building codes. In response to Com. Fazekas question Mr. Cowan stated that this ordinance would apply to all residential units. In response to Com. Mann's question Mr. Cowan stated that about 40 percent of buildings in R3 zones are involved in this issue. Com. Mann noted a time limit on the ordinance may be an approach stating that after 10 or 15 years property owners would have to comply with the new building codes. In response Mr. Cowan stated PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 26, 1990 page 3 the same problem would arise when the time limit run out. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Dave Kopels, 10161 Bilich Place, stated that the last meeting on this issue was not a public hearing and it was stated a decision would not be made. In response to this Mr. Cowan explained the steps of the Planning Departments procedures stating the last meeting was to substantiate if there was a problem to warrant a public hearing to consider changes to the ordinance. He noted this meeting was an advertised public hearing to receive more public testimony and take action. Mr. Kopels stated for the record that he takes objection to staff and the Planning Commission's procedure. He further stated there is a communication gap regarding the legal non-conforming use. He expressed concern about the process of disclosure. Mr. Kopels stated that the property owners who were annexed from San Jose should have been informed of the legal non-conforming use. Mr. Kopels disagreed with the time limit. Com. Mann explained that voluntary destruction is a building destroyed intentionally. Mr. Kopels stated that the property annexed from San Jose should be treated separately. Chr. claudy explained the new ordinance noting that property owners will be able to build exactly what they had before the destruction if this ordinance is passed. Mr. Siamak Sani, 19482 Rosemarie Pl. #4, questioned the ordinance and what it involved. Chr. Claudy explained the ordinance in the case of a catastrophe. He also noted that if a building was destroyed by the owner illegally, the new building would have to comply with the new building codes. He noted that if a building was zoned for six units the property owner could build six as long as all building codes were met even if there was only four units on the existing structure. Ms. Mary Brown, Realtor, Los Altos, thanked the Commissioners for trying to rectify this problem. Chr. Claudy thanked Ms. Brown for her efforts on this matter. He explained to the public that no vote would be taken on this tonight as it must go before the Environmental Review Committee. Mr. Robert Cowan suggested keeping the public hearing open and continue this item. He noted if any changes were made staff will draw up a more complete draft for later discussion. Mr. Cowan PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 26, 1990 page 4 noted Com. Mackenzie's comments regarding deviation from the set standards and asked the Commission for their opinion. Com. Mackenzie noted it would be very complicated if a use permit was required for every deviation and was in support of the ordinance as drafted. In response to Com. Fazekas question Com. Mackenzie stated the property owner had two choices if his property was destroyed involuntary, build to the new zoning ordinance or build back what he had. Com. Fazekas questioned if any of these units were non-conforming due to parking. He was concerned if parking is a problem now it would continue to be a problem under the new ordinance. Ms. Barbara Kopels, 10161 Bilich Pl., expressed concern about the property being non-conforming. She stated that before the annexation into Cupertino the property was conforming. Mr. Robert Cowan stated that when an ordinance changes all existing buildings not meeting the new code are now non-conforming. He stated there was as preamble to the annexation stating that all the units which were annexed if redeveloped had to meet the City of Cupertino standards. Com. Mackenzie suggested staff make the revisions as stated earlier. Mr. Warren Mine, 1942 Castro Drive, suggested that the words "at the owners discretion" read after the words "may be replaced" in section 7.3 of the draft resolution. In response to Mr. Warren's question Chr. Claudy read the City Attorney's comments as to why option two was not appropriate. In response to Ms. Brown's question Com. Mackenzie noted that there will be wording changes and will be back before the Planning Commission on April 9, 1990 for a final vote. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to continue File Reference 81,004.211 to April 9, 1990. Adams Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 26, 1990 page 5 3. Application No(s): Applicant: property OWner: Location: 4-U-90 and 3-EA-90 Michael and Judy McGrain Michael and Judy McGrain North side of Granada Avenue 250 ft. west of Byrne Avenue. USE PERMIT to provide alSO s.f. second story addition on an existing detached residence in a Planned Development zoning district. Staff Presentation: Mr. Mark Caughey presented the staff report. He stated that this project was first approved as part of a three lot subdivision with a condition on the use permit that second story additions had to conform with the R-l ordinance requirements. Mr. Caughey stated the setback for the second story are smaller than required in the R-l ordinance. He noted that staff's principal concern was the westerly facing window, and suggested the window be changed to a clear story window or no window at all. Mr. Caughey stated that staff recommends approval of the Use Permit as submitted subject to the condition that the proposed addition be fitted out with automatic fire sprinklers. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. Caughey stated that this was a setback issue. In response to Com. Fazekas question Mr. Caughey noted that the original house was builtin a Planned Development Zone. Mr. Caughey stated that the previous conditions refer to the R-l ordinance for second story additions. The public hearing was then opened. Acclicant Presentation: Ms. Judy McGrain, 21867 Granada, stated the reason for the placement of the window was that they needed a large fire escape window. She noted they are over the setback by four feet but architecturally it looked better. She noted the lot to the west is empty so there would be no privacy intrusion. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to close the public hearing Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 Chr. Claudy stated he would vote against this item because at the time of the development it was stated explicitly that the R-l guidelines should be followed. Com. Mackenzie stated that if this was in a conventional R-l zone this application would be a variance which he would not support. Com. Mann agreed with Com. Mackenzie stating there was too much building mass on the lot. Com. Fazekas agreed with Com. Mann. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 26, 1990 page 6 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend denial of application 4-U-90 with the findings that this is a single family residential structure and does not conform to the R-l ordinance requirements. Com. Mann Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: 4. APPLICATION 81,004.18 - CITY OF CUPERTINO: Amendment of Ordinance 1449 (Residential Single Family Zoning District), Ordinance 1451 (Agricultural Residential Zoning District) and Ordinance 1452 (Agricultural Zoning District) to add regulations providing for mandatory installation of front yard landscaping for new construction and substantially remodeled existing development, and providing for the review and inspection of said landscaping. Staff Presentation: Mr. Mark Caughey presented the staff report. He stated that council directed staff to review the landscaping standards for single family residents. He noted that Council was concerned about the front yard area being unimproved for long periods of time after residents moved in. He stated staff recommends approval as proposed. In response to Com. Mann's question Mr. Caughey stated that usually a minimum amount of landscaping is provided by the developer and stated this amendment would pertain to all new residential projects. In response to Com. Adams question Mr. Caughey stated that staff would be doing minimal work if the amendment was adopted. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Dick Childress, 11701 Regnart Canyon Drive, stated that this amendment was discriminatory, contrary to affordable housing goals of the city, and flawed in structure. He noted it would become a staffing problem. He stated that trees on a person's property having to be compatible with street trees is inappropriate and expressed concerned about too much government involvement in what people can and can't do with their homes. Com. Mann stated she would not support this amendment, she noted it was an infringement of individual rights. Com. Adams stated he was not in support of this project. He stated landscaping is each individual homeowner's right and the amendment would take up too much staff time. Com. Fazekas stated he was in support of the amendment. Com. Mackenzie noted he agreed with Com. Mann and Com. Adams and could not see a need for this ordinance. But he expressed the need to support the City Council in its request for an ordinance. He PLANHING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 26, 1990 page 7 suggested sending a minute order with the ordinance to the Council explaining the Commission's philosophical concerns. Mr. Cowan stated the intent of the council was to put green on the land and make the property look finished. Chr. Claudy stated he would vote against the amendment. He noted that unless there was adequate irrigation everything would die. He suggested a rebate from the developer if landscaping was put in within a certain time period. In response to Chr. Claudy's question Mr. Childress stated his development provided this rebate and it worked very successfully. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NOES: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the public hearing Com. Mann Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie Declaration Com. Fazekas Passed Negative recommend moved to a 5-0 Com. Adams moved to recommend the ordinance for landscaping requirements not be acted upon with the following findings: increase of unnecessary staff time; violates single family owners privileges to maintain their own yard as they desire; it is unnecessary; likely to result in installation of unnecessary landscaping, leading to unnecessary cost; unimaginative landscaping. Com. Mann Passed 3-2 Com. Fazekas, Com. Mackenzie OLD BUSINESS: 6. APPLICATION 31-U-88 - LUCAS DEALERSHIP GROUP: Requesting review of a minor modification to a use permit to change the previously approved decorative structures to be installed on the north elevation of an existing office building located at the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Finch Avenue. Staff Presentation: Mr. Mark Caughey presented the staff report. He stated that as requested by the Commission the building mass of the project has been reduced and noted the applicant had a model. ADÇ)licant Presentation: Mr. Hollis Logue, Architect, stated in response to Com. Fazekas question that the setback was 25 feet from the columns to the property line. He noted the project was now one main structure. He asked permission of the Commission with staff's approval to move the structure four or five feet depending upon what is underground. He stated they had accomplished what was previously suggested by the Commissioners. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 26, 1990 page 8 Com. Adams expressed concern about the lights closest to the building stating it may be a traffic distraction. Mr. Logue stated he would be willing to eliminate the light as the other three lights in each kiosk would be sufficient. Mr. Logue explained the reduction in the building mass stating that the columns were reduced from 16 to 12 inches, the horizontal members down to two and one half feet and the thickness reduced from 12 to 8 inches Mr. Mark Caughey stated this project could be treated as an architectural projection if attached to the building which could encroach in the 50' setback area. In response to Com. Mackenzie question Mr. Logue stated that the kiosks were not attached to the building, but if they were it would eliminate three columns in front of the windows. Chr. Claudy stated this was a much better design and agreed with Com. Mackenzie that the structure should be attached to the building. In response to Chr. Claudy's question Mr. Logue stated there will be joint lines on the structure. The public hearing was then opened. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams moved to close the public hearing Com. Mann Passed 5-0 Com. Adams and Com. Mann withdrew their motion to close the public hearing as Chr. Claudy stated it was not a public hearing. The Commissioners discussed the lighting issue noting concern as to a traffic distraction. Mr. Robert Cowan stated that there is a city policy as to the safety issue of the lights and staff would look further into this matter. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to adopt 31-U-88 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with condition 1 modified to indicate that the southerly most lights are not permitted; the columns may be moved minimally at staff's discretion to avoid underground objects; the structure can be attached to the building with the columns closest to the building removed; condition 2 removed. Com. Adams Passed 5-0 NEW BUSINESS: 7. Planning Director's interpretation regarding the construction of a garage on a vacant lot to house agricultural equipment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 26, 1990 page 9 Staff Presentation: Mr. Mark caughey r~~s~nted the staff report. He stated the applicant is a resident of lot 6 and would like to use lot five for storage of agricultural equipment. He noted that the structure proposed would look like a garage and be incorporated into a garage when lot 5 developed residentially. He noted that R- 1 Ordinance does allow agricultural uses as a permitted use. He stated the concern of staff was whether or not the use is truly agricultural as it is surrounded by developed residential use. Mr. Caughey explained that when the tentative map dividing this area into residential units was approved there was an easement reserve at the applicants request for access to an agricultural well. Staff suggested that a garage would constitute an accessory use rather than a principle use and therefore could not stand alone. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. Caughey stated that if agricultural was taking place on lot 5 then the building would then be approved as an agricultural building. Mr. Robert Cowan stated that if farming was taking place then an agricultural structure would be allowed. Acclicant Presentation: Mr. Peter S. Camada, 20030 Forest Ave. stated he owned lot 5 and 6. He noted he would like to build a garage and stated he had talked to the neighbors and there was no problem. He explained he would use the garage for storage of agricultural equipment and noted he had no intention of selling lot 5. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. Camada stated he would bui ld a standard two car garage. Mr. Camada also noted that he has apricot trees on both lots 5 and 6 and does sell the apricots. Chr. Claudy invited the public to speak. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. Cowan stated staff did not recommend approval because the property had been subdivided. Com. Mann spoke in support of the accessory building and stated that the applicant was farming the apricot trees. Chr. Adams spoke in support of the accessory building. SECOND: VOTE: NOES: Com. Mann moved to approve the accessory building will on the property. Com. Adams Passed Com. Fazekas item 7 with the finding that support the agricultural uses MOTION: 4-1 REPORT OF THE PLAHNING COMMISSION: - none